Though
the respondents have been served with notice they are not appearing either in
person or through counsel.

We
have heard Sri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.

This
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administrative Tribunal of
Andhra Pradesh passed on December
2, 1992 in O.A.
No.5158/92. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that though the posts
of Assistant Conmercial Tax officers etc. are governed by rules made under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution issued in G.O. Ms. No.107 dated
January 30, 1962 and G.O. Ms. No.81- Revenue, dated February 3, 1990, Rule 22
of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules is not applicable to the
recruitment by transfer and promotion. Consequently,the Government was not
justified in applying the rule to the above services. The view taken by the
Tribunal is not correct in view of special rules holding the feild.

Rule 5
of the A.P. Commercial Tax Subordinate Service Rules (the special Rules) reads
thus:

"Special
Representation:- Except in so far as it relates to physically handicapped
persons the rule of special representation (General Rule 22) shall apply
separately to the appointment of Commercial Tax Officers by direct recrutment
and to their appointment by transfer." Rule 22 of the State and
Subordinate Service rules, which is the general rule, which alone is re1evant
for the purpose of this case reads thus:

"22.
Special representation: All appointment to a service, class or category-

(i) by
direct recruitment, except where the Government by a general or special order
made in this behalf except such service, class or category;

(ii)
otherwise than by direct recruitment, where the special rules lay down that the
principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such service, class or
category; shall be made on the following basis;

"Provided
further that the carry forward vacancies and current reserved vacancies in a
recruitment year shall be available for utilisation even where the total number
of such reserved vacancies exceed s (52%) of the vacancies filled that year in
case the overall representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the total strength of the concerned grade or cadre, has not reached the
prescribed percentage of reservati on of (15%) for the5cheduled Castes and (6%)
for the Scheduled Tribes respectively." Rule 5 of the Special Rules
envisages applicability of Rule 22 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules
(General Rules) for appointments to the above service. The relevant proviso to
rule 22 extracted hereinbefore postulates that the carry forward vacancies and
current reserved vacancies in a recruitment year shall be available for utilisation
even where the total number of such reserved vacancies exceeds 52% of the
vacancies filled that year in case the overall representation of the Scheduled
castes and Scheduled Tribes in the total strength of the concerned grade or
cadre, has not reached the prescribed percentage of reservation of 15%
(subsequently increased to 16%) and for the Scheduled Tribes 6% (subsequently
increased to 7%), as the case may be.

In
General hanaqer, Southern Railway v. Rangachari [(1962 (2) SCR p.586], the
Constitution Bench per majority had held that the matters relating to
employment cannot mnean merely matters prior to the act of appointment nor can
appointment to an office mean merely the initial appointment but must include
all matters relating to employment whether prior or subsequent to the ewployment
that are either incidental to such employment or form part of its terms and
conditions and also include promotion to a selection post.

This
principle was reiterated by a bench of 7 Judges of this Court in State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas & Ors. [(1976) 1
SCRp.906]. The same was followed per majority in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari
Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Ors. [(1981) 1 SCC 246]. It was thus
interpreted by this Court that appointment would include promotion.

The
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in contra distinction to
the rest of the Indian community and others are classified to accord
fundamental right of equality of opportunity to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of adequate representation in the services
under the State. In 1ndra SawhneY and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [(1992) Supp. 3 SCR 217],
a larger bench of nine Judges per majority, in which Justice A.M. Ahmadi, J.
(as he then was) did not participate on the issue since it did not directly
arise for decision therein, held that reservation of appointment or post under Art.16(4)
is confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to provide
reservation in matters of promotion. However, this Court uphe1d the promotions
made until the date of the judgment, namely, November 16, 1992 and held that wherever special rules have not provided
reservation in appointment by promotion, the same was permitted to be done
within 5years from that date. The Parliament amended Article 16 by 77th Constitution
(Amendment Act) 1995 Which came into force from June 17, 1995 incorporating clause 4A to Art.l6 which reads thus:

"Nothing
in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for
reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes which, in the opinion of the States, are not adequately represented in
the services under the State." The Parliament by amending the Constitution
and introducing Art.l6(4A) has recoved the base as interpreted by this Court in
Indra Sawhney's case that appointment does not include promotion by making
express provisions that when the State forms an opinion that members of the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented inany
service or to any class or classes of base in the service under the State, the
State is empowered to make provisions for reservation by promotion. Article
16(1) does not prevent the State from making such a provision. In Indra Sawhney's
case also, this Court reiterated that right to equality under Article 16(1) is
equally applicable to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Articles
16(4) is not an exception. Reservation is part of the scheme of equality under
Article 16(1).Article 16(4A) would establish that the interpretation put up in Ranqachari's.
Thomas' and Karamchari Sangh's cases received parliamentary approval. It would
thus be clear that as a principle of law, rule of reservation can apply not
only to initial recruitment but also in promotions where the State is of the
opinion that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately
represented in promotional posts in class or classes of service under the
State. It is seen that Rule 22 of the general Rules provides reservation for
appointment by direct recruitment. By Constitutional parameters and
interpretation of law by this Court,reservation under Articles 141B, 16(1) and
16(4) would include reservation in promotion as well.

In
view of the above, the stand taken by the Tribunal that Rule 22 would apply
only for direct recruitment and not for appointment by promotion, is illegal.

The
appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances, without costs.